Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Archive for the ‘Lex scripta’ Category

Eurojustice

Posted by Ron Coleman on November 13, 2008

This creep in Austria is being charged with just about every awful crime in the book.   It’s a grisly story.  But here’s what jumped out at me:

If convicted of the murder charge, Fritzl would face life imprisonment, which in Austria typically means 15 years’ confinement.  Austria, like other European countries, has no death penalty.

Which makes me wonder, what would be so terrible about the death penalty then?   If “life imprisonment” means 15 years, a sentence of death probably means a really painful hangnail.

Posted in Euroids, Lex scripta, O Mores! | 1 Comment »

Same-sex marriage laws: Not amenable to democracy?

Posted by Ron Coleman on November 5, 2008

Same-sex marriage advocates wasted no time suing to overturn the decisive result in the voting over California’s Proposition 8:

As the vote counting continued this morning, opponents of Prop. 8 filed a lawsuit directly with the state Supreme Court – whose May 15 ruling legalized same-sex marriage – asking the justices to overturn the measure.

The suit argued that Prop. 8 would change the California Constitution in such fundamental ways – taking important rights away from a minority group – that it amounted to a constitutional revision, which requires approval by the Legislature before being submitted to the voters. The case was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Lamda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The same groups asked the court before the election to remove Prop. 8 from the ballot on those grounds. The justices refused, but left the door open for a post-election challenge.

“A major purpose of the Constitution is to protect minorities from majorities,” said Elizabeth Gill, an ACLU lawyer. “Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the Constitution itself, only the Legislature can initiative such revisions.”

I don’t know anything about the California constitution, but it would sure surprise me to learn that same-sex marriage is one of its “organizing principles.” But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the California Supreme Court would rule that it is!

That must be some state, California.  What else do they have in that constitution of theirs?  Makes France look more backward than ever.

Posted in Lex scripta, O Mores!, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Fear this

Posted by Ron Coleman on November 4, 2008

Well tell you whats fair and balanced.

We'll tell you what's fair and balanced.

I have been writing consistently, stridently and at some cost to my frazzled nerves, based on the reactions, that fear-mongering by anti-Obama partisans is a mistake, is unwarranted, is irresponsible.  (UPDATE:  Not just me.)

But there is one thing I really do fear, and unlike socialism or any other bogeyman trotted out in this election, you need not look under the bed to find it:  It’s the Orwellian-named Fairness Doctrine.  And Democrats have unabashedly promised to bring it back via legislation.

This is a genuine threat to everything unless the Supreme Court either revisits is prior, wrong decisions upholding the Fairness Doctrine and rules, as it should, that it is unconstitutional.  The Internet helps, because it is an alternative medium — for now.  But the Fairness Doctrine is the scariest thing the Democrats are promising, and it makes anything else that you can imagine, or have imagined, and that the likes of me have poo-pooed, eminently possible.

So, yeah, on this I do say “be very scared.”

UPDATE: Maybe people are getting scared, finally.

Posted in Lex scripta, Medialites, Oppression, Politics and Poker | 2 Comments »

Ron Coleman’s McCain Info-me-cials: #4 — Judge mental

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 31, 2008

It’s not just law professors or even lawyers thinking about this.  And it’s not entirely about Obama — after all, of all places he did teach at the University of Chicago, hardly a hotbed of lefty bomb-throwing on the the law faculty.

But when you look at that posse around him and all those JD’s… you just try and fall asleep!

(Besides, some journalism really does work better in pajamas!)

Posted in Americana, Lex scripta, Narcissus Rex, Politics and Poker | 1 Comment »

The silence deafens

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 23, 2008

A long time ago I identified Erwin Chemerinsky as a pretty contemptible guy, a left-wing extremist in the groves of legal academia who gets away with all sorts of things because of the way the game is played in that high-end segment of the business:

In April 2005, he was named by Legal Affairs as one of “the top 20 legal thinkers in America.”

Never right means never wrong

Never right means never wrong

Named by the Daily Journal every year from 1998-2003 as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in California. Awards include the 2003 President’s Award from the Criminal Courts Bar Association; 2003 Freedom of Information Award form the Society for Professional Journalists; 2002 Community Service Award from the Western Center on Law and Poverty; 2001 Community Service Award from the Anti-Defamation League; 2001 Clarence Darrow Award from the People’s College of Law; 2000 Alumni Achievement Award from Northwestern University; the 1999 Eason Monroe Courageous Advocate Award from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California; and the 1998 Judge John Brown Award for Contributions to Federal Judicial Education. Also received awards for work on the Los Angeles City Charter from the American Society of Public Administration, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and the Los Angeles Urban League.

Wow!  But as I pointed out in my earlier post, Chemerinsky goes beyond the Larry Tribes and Alan Dershowitzes of the world to a never-never land where the political end comes far ahead of intellectual honesty.  Walter Olson has a post that confirms the point:

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the newly founded UC Irvine school of (ideologically charged) law seems to fancy himself the conscience of legal academia. But it’s looking very much as if he — along with some bloggers and legal publications who should know better — owe an abject apology to Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The affair began when the New York Daily Record, a Rochester, N.Y. legal publication, reported on a speech Judge Jacobs gave to a Federalist Society gathering in that upstate city. As soon summarized on several blogs and publications, Judge Jacobs supposedly dismissed pro bono work by lawyers — all of it, in its enormous variety from high to low, humble to headline-driving, plain-vanilla to goofily cutting-edge — as at least “primarily”, if not entirely, driven by “anti-social” and self-seeking impulses. As criticism mushroomed, it was pointed out that Judge Jacobs had himself been quite involved with efforts to promote pro bono work among lawyers. Rather than cause the writers to question whether the Rochester report accurately summarized Jacobs’ views, this circumstance was seized on as evidence that the judge was being hypocritical, or inconsistent, or something else bad.

Like, I suspect, a great many other readers, I knew from the very first reports that there was something very “off” about the story as it was being retailed. . . . In short, I clicked past the story figuring that a correction would soon be forthcoming, and more than a little surprised that those spreading it didn’t seem to regard the reporting as suspect.

But it was the reaction of Erwin Chemerinsky that will long be remembered. Without, it seems, waiting for any further clarification from Judge Jacobs of exactly what he had or hadn’t said, Chemerinsky mounted the highest horse available and rushed into the pages of the National Law Journal with a piece unsubtly titled “Shame on Dennis Jacobs“. Jacobs “should be ashamed of himself,” the speech was “a slap in the face”, “I hope that he is widely denounced for his misguided views”, and so forth. All of which happened to rest, readers may have noticed, on a wobbly little phrase in Chemerinsky’s second sentence, namely namely “it was reported that“.

Can you hear the “oops” coming?

Only in my mind’s ear, despite this revelation from Walter:

When the WSJ law blog turned to the story yesterday, it too at first seemed to take it at face value. But later in the day, it added the following:

UPDATE: Through a spokesman, Judge Jacobs conveyed the following message to the Law Blog: “Dean Chemerinsky’s article was evidently based on a newspaper article of my talk that grossly misstates what I said and think. Neither the National Law Journal nor Dean Chemerinsky have contacted me. I support, endorse and solicit pro bono work, and my talk said just that. The talk identifies abuses.”

Has Chemerinsky got it in him to acknowledge his egregiously unprofessional error?  Or is mere truthiness going to be enough for him to sleep at night?  I have a pretty good idea which.  But if I’m mistaken, I’ll be sure to let you know — right here!

UPDATE:  Walter now links, via the Federalist Society, to the speech itself here.

Posted in Lex scripta, Medialites, Narcissus Rex | 2 Comments »

Pantsed

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 22, 2008

The pants lawsuit “judge” that did so much for this blog:  He’s back, says the Washington Post:

Pearson, a former District administrative law judge, recycled some of the same legal arguments that were rejected last year by a judge in D.C. Superior Court — namely, that a sign at the Northeast Washington store saying “Satisfaction Guaranteed” meant he was entitled to the money.

“This is not about a pair of suit pants,” Pearson, 58, representing himself, told a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals. The term “satisfaction guaranteed” is “very subjective” and with “no parameters at all,” he said, accusing the cleaners of fraud.

What is so phenomenal about this is the idea that anyone who has every practiced law and been paid for it, much less someone vested with the title of a judicial officer in any jurisdiction, could ever, ever make this argument with a straight face in a court of law.

The reporting about the oral argument says, indeed, that the appellate panel was incredulous at the fact that Pearson not only made this “argument,” but acknowledged that he didn’t have a single judicial precedent to back it up — thank God.

But really, something is very, very wrong here.  (Hat tip to James Hertsch.)

Posted in Lex scripta, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

The prosecutor

Posted by Ron Coleman on October 2, 2008

Downtown

"Downtown"

Today I went “downtown” for the first time — representing the victim of a crime, I accompanied him to a visit to a special prosecutor for the Manhattan District Attorney, where we discussed coordinating our criminal and civil legal strategies.

So what was it like?

It was actually kind of cool.  I have a friend who decided to go to law school about 15 years after I did, and he went to work there, but I had never visited him “inside.”  So as someone who grew up entirely in business law, but also a litigator and trial attorney, I have always been fascinated by the prosecutor’s job.

Plus, I look the part, right?

Plus, I look the part, right?

I think I really would have liked it, except for a couple of things.   I would have liked the “public service” piece.  Eventually I concluded, in my business law career, that I was pretty much going to have be on the side of the angels in any given legal cause in order to be motivated.   Now most business disputes don’t really have a good guy or a bad guy, but amazingly in all my cases I represent the good guy!

I would have liked being the G-man, the government’s enforcer, to some extent, too.  I am no libertarian, but even libertarians agree with the concept of law enforcement.

No, my objection to be a prosecutor would not have come with respect to the issue of prosecuting people for crimes I would personally find objectionable.  I believe in representative democracy, by and large, and if chewing gum on Wednesday or smoking spliff in an elevator is against the law, so be it.  Call your congressman.

There are two things I wouldn’t like, though, from what I’ve seen.

One is that, well, it’s not so simple.  There’s no question there are prosecutors who are assigned with the task, or who undertake it themselves, of prosecuting people for crimes they probably didn’t commit.  I don’t think I could stand even being around that.

The other one is an image I will never get past, and would it implies.  It was during my first trial, in fact.  We were in federal court in New Jersey, and the judge asked us to recess so he could handle a criminal arraignment.

The jumpsuit-clad defendant, a stocky black man, was brought in a special doorway in the side of the courtroom, out of which had two burly United States Marshals had preceded him.  Two more brought him, bringing him into the room by virtue of two hands each gripped on an arm.  He was cuffed.

And he was manacled.

He looked pretty fierce.  And he looked pretty broken, at the same time.

Maybe this man was guilty of what he was charged with.  Maybe he was guilty of a lot more.  Maybe I am really glad he was put away.

But at the moment I knew I could not be one of those charged with doing it.

A man may turn himself into an animal, or treat others bestially.  Such a person forfeits the right to free and unfettered association with those who retain their humanity, or who are entitled merely not to be his prospective victims.  Someone has to tame that man, and divest him of the privileges of human society and, if need be, to shackle him at the wrists and ankles, to make him resemble the captured beast he has become.

I am not the one to do it, however.  And as extreme as that vision was, as unusual, and as many prosecutors actually have very little to do with violent crime, that image, that personification of the role of the prosecuted never left me, and I knew that as long as there was someone else who could, and would, do the job, it was never going to be a job for me.

Posted in Heart and spirit, Lex scripta | 2 Comments »

Free speech swings both ways

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 22, 2008

At LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® I ask the constitutional question about a change in Google’s keyword advertising policy:

[I]s this is victory for free speech, because a controversial key word is available to all sides that have something to say about an issue? Or is it a diminution of Google’s free speech rights because, on the threat of government coercion (i.e., a lawsuit), it has to make its platform available to messages of which it does not approve?

Posted in Lex scripta, Oppression | Leave a Comment »

Is that where they keep them?

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 28, 2008

You can’t escape justice merely by donning a tin hat, it seems. The European Court of Human Rights, his last resort after a series of British courts were unhelpful, has refused to block the extradition to the U.S. of Gary McKinnon, a Briton who hacked into Pentagon and NASA computers.  This is despite the fact that he claims extradition “would violate his human rights.”

U.S. prosecutors want to put McKinnon on trial for allegedly hacking into 97 computers belonging to NASA and several branches of the U.S. military from a bedroom in a north London home. He claims he was searching for UFOs.

In retrospect it seems the better tactical move would have been to claim immunity under the Federations’ Uniform Code of Justice.  Or, from the looks of him, some provision of the Vulcan constitution.

It came from outer space, but very slowly

It came from outer space, but very slowly

Presumably the high-tech aliens he is seeking will swoop down at this point and take care of things for McKinnon, having given earth’s puny rulers every chance to act justly.  On the other hand, given their advanced state, they may just be too embarrassed, based on what he told Wired a couple of years ago:

A NASA photographic expert said that there was a Building 8 at Johnson Space Center where they regularly airbrushed out images of UFOs from the high-resolution satellite imaging. I logged on to NASA and was able to access this department. They had huge, high-resolution images stored in their picture files. They had filtered and unfiltered, or processed and unprocessed, files.

My dialup 56K connection was very slow trying to download one of these picture files.

It would be, wouldn’t it!

Posted in Jocularity, Lex scripta, Nuvo-Techno, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

Copyright law has been stood on its head and Bill Patry doffs his cap

Posted by Ron Coleman on August 5, 2008

Copyright doyen Bill Patry explains why he shut down his brilliant copyright law blog. Some of it had to do with his inability to prevent people from ascribing his personal views to his employer, Google. Some of it had to do with a sort of spiritual exhaustion (despite being a pretty spiritual guy). But naturally, this is the reason that got my attention:

Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners. Like Humpty-Dumpty, the copyright law we used to know can never be put back together again: multilateral and trade agreements have ensured that, and quite deliberately.

It’s depressing, and he’s probably right. Again: He says copyright’s “principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits from activity that not only causes no harm, but which is beneficial to copyright owners.”

What ever kind of thing could he be talking about? (Hat tip to Carol Ruth Shepard.)

Cross-posted in slightly expanded form on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®.

Posted in Blogophilia, Gelt, Lex scripta | 1 Comment »